New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

gisterme - 05:41pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8612 of 8616)

rshowalter wrote( rshowalter 9/7/01 12:41pm ): "...When you get an evasive but extensive answer, such as the one I got from gisterme , a Washington operator,..."

BwaaHaHaHaHaHaaa....A WHAT ???? What's a "Washington operator", Robert? A government employee who routes phone calls? Sorry Bob. All those have been replaced by smart machines.

"...Gisterme says I was baised when I asked the following question:

"...When Turner gave his money, did he know how close Sam Nunn is to Kissinger and Wesley Clark and other people who do not communicate well with Russians, and who have an interest in glorifying, justifying, sanitizing, perpetuating, and profiting from the Cold War, and the arrangements built in America to fight the Cold War?..."

I wonder about that...."

Don't wonder, Robert. Here's the beef...you just don't point out the positive things about people because that doesn't suit your agenda. Your bias is consistently toward the negative (from the democracy viewpoint) when it comes to US involvement in history. You always fail to emphasize the context when you ask leading questions that appear incriminating to their subjects. You phrase things in such a way as to make people's noses pucker without any real reason; it's lots of clever emoting that's devoid of substance. That's all I'm saying there about your bias.

"...I notice that gisterme , after dismissing me with a few words as "biased", then proceeds to glorify, justify, sanitize, and argue for the profitability of the Cold War. gisterme 9/7/01 2:38am

Robert, remember that we only hypothesized ( gisterme 9/7/01 2:38am ) that the Cold War might have somehow been avoided. In reality, the only alternative was a nuclear war or surrender. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to justify about the Cold War given that alternative. The long-term results speak for themselves. So far as "glorifying" or "sanitizing" goes, well, I can't see where you come from with that accusation. All I was doing was pointing out some collateral benefits that derived from an unavoidably bad situation. I suppose that's the difference between taking a positve and negative attitude. Of course, you communists are going to hate the results of the Cold War and try to find some way to blame the demise of world-wide communism on something other than its own flawed theories,...you know like claiming that Americans or the Amrican military is more nazi-like than any of the others. I can understand that. I believe it's at the very seat of your bias. You just can't believe that communist theory is unworkable beyond the covers of a book.

But to directly answer your question, I haven't a clue about what Mr. Turner knew about Sam Nunn except a presumption that he must have liked him. As far as your implications go, in my view, the intrest that Kissinger and Clark had in the Cold War had to do with getting it over with while avoiding the nuclear war or outright surrender. So far as profitablity goes, I think that's another red herring. As far as I know, Sam Nunn is not an extremely wealthy man when compared to someone like Ted Turner. As for Kissinger and Clark, I doubt you'll see either one of them on the top half-million wealthiest people in the world list. All those guys wanted to do was help their country defeat the threat of communist expansion. They did that admirably.

rshowalter - 05:47pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8613 of 8616)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Hi gisterme , glad to hear from you. Had this prepared, but I think it fits your posting well.

Sometimes, to make sense of things, you have to become comfortable with the idea that both mistakes and deceptions can be commonplace. Here is a quote from a mystery story writer, Dashiell Hammet in The Thin Man , 1933, speaking of a sexy, interesting, treacherous character named "Mimi". The private detective hero is asked by a police detective what to make of what Mimi says:

" The chief thing," I advised him, "is not to let her wear you out. When you catch her in a lie, she admits it and gives you another lie to take its place, and when you catch he in that one, admits it, and gives you still another, and so on. Most people . . . get discouraged after you've caught them in the third or fourth straight lie and fall back on the truth or silence, but not Mimi. She keeps trying, and you've got to be careful or you'll find yourself believing her, not because she seems to be telling the truth, but simply because you're tired of disbelieving her. "

If the Russians trusted us to act differently from the way we acted during the "Cold War" . . . there would be fine opportunities for peace. Dialog in this thread, from almarst , indicates that again and again. And expresses, in detail, what the concerns are, and why they are.

Trust , and issues of reliable information flows , are crucial.

If the possibilty of deception is "not discussable" --- then solutions, that might otherwise be possible, may be classified out of existence. In a case this complex, I believe that the convention that deceptions are not to be considered and cleaned up will classify the kinds of cooperation "win-win" solutions take out of existence.

I believe that this very dangerous convention is now in place. We need to remove it.

rshowalter - 05:49pm Sep 7, 2001 EST (#8614 of 8616)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

I think when you say "the only alternative was nuclear war or surrender" you're misstating a great deal.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense